Do you believe in guns?

[Sukerkin]

Thats funny. I suppose we in the US are still bowing to your king then? ;P

This is an aside, so don't let it de-rail the main intent of the thread (and it's not particularly significant that I quoted Cryo as a header) but the history of what you call the War of Independance is rather different from the common slant I have seen it given on-line.

The tale often spoken is that a band of doughty rebels threw off the yoke of the English Empire through their courage and skill at arms.

The rebellion certainly started with a group of Englishmen seeking to make for themselves an independance where they did not have to pay taxes to their founding country.

However, it was the French that did a great deal of the fighting on land and provided most of the trouble at sea when it came to intefering with our shipping over troops and supplies.

As far as I know (and I am more than willing to be shown wrong as I'm not on a polemic here) the proto-American's never won a single major engagement where they were not heavily supported by line troops of the French. Skirmish tactics do not win battles on their own and altho' they were very good at it, that was the mainstay of the rebels.

I have often wondered why the French are not given greater honour by the American's for their part in that rebellion. After all, there are American streets named after prominent French players in that fracas and, I believe, the odd statue here and there and yet it does not seem to be common knowledge just how large the debt owed to England's hereditory enemy actually is.

Why bring this up? Well, in part, I am not ashamed to admit that it scourges my sense of fair-play to have the rebellion trumpeted as a great triumph against my country when in fact we were fighting half-heartedly with one arm tied behind our backs (the rebel leaders picked their moment well, you can't take that away from them).

The major reason tho' is that, as a former professional in the field of history, I can't not say something when I see, yet again, the 'truth' (from my perspective) being distorted and forgotten.

 

[Archangel M]

I don't know why Americans feel the need to point out that we won our Independence from England (with help or not...strategically and politically the colonists "won" and maintained their Independence from England and France.) when many (99% of mine at least) of our ancestors arrived long after the Revolution.

Likewise I don't know why any Englishmen would get their dander up over exactly by who, how or why the Revolution was won or lost. It was pretty much their people on either side of the fight anyway. Wikipedia refers to the Revolution as the equivalent of an English "Civil War".

 

[Thesemindz]

Hmmm i can see were you are coming from. Although after looking at the censorship page I see no error in the logic of "Most" of the decisions. but I can't argue with the fact that our goverments have made errors in the past, (big ones and i think you missed our treatment of the aborignals) and will probably make them in the future. But I can't help but think that your looking at things a bit on the extreme side.

while it is true we loose alot of our money for programs we didn't vote for and can't use, we also get alot back from it, and each of us are probley entitled to things that others can't use, for example on my farm if we buy a windmill (up to a certain price) the goverment will pay for half of it but if you don't have a farm... also the free health care is a blessing and has saved me during many asthma attacks.

i guess everyone is forced to pay so that people who don't pay can't take advantage of those who do pay in.

but overall I can't refute your arguement, I can just put my trust in the goverment and hope they won't do anything oppresive enough that we need to take action against them

Or you could learn to put your trust in yourself and live your life as freely as possible without relying on your government to provide for either your security or your windmills.

I did in fact see the aboriginal slavery, but didn't post it because I didn't want anyone to miss my point by focusing on such a hot button issue. While I understand your reluctance to see any form of government subsidization as oppression, I can't agree.

Let's take away the words "health care" and "welfare" and replace them with the word "pizza."

What if your government declared that everyone had a right to a pizza, and that those who could not afford a pizza would have their pizza paid for by those who could. Let's say that further, the government set the cost on pizza so that private pizza providers couldn't make unfair profits off of the sale of pizza, which is every man's right. Let's also add that the government set a limit on the amount of pizza that each man can have at any one time, so that we can make sure that there is enough pizza for everyone.

Now, at first, everyone is happy because they get their pizza. But some pizza companies were selling really expensive high end pizza and now they have to sell the same pizza as everyone else, so they move into different industries. And the government didn't set cost limitations on the cost of cheese and pepperoni, so pizza companies start paying more for the products necessary to make the pizza than they are legally allowed to charge for the end product. Soon, pizza companies are going out of business.

As fewer and fewer pizza companies survive, more and more people are unable to get their pizza, so some turn to the black market to get pizza. Unfortunately, by its very nature, the black market is unreliable and so some get bad pizza. But because they went outside the accepted infrastructure for their pizza, they have no legal recourse.

Eventually, there are so few pizza companies that pizza rationing has to be expanded, and now each person is only allowed a slice of pizza, and fat people don't get any pizza because they probably ate more than their fill already. Unfortunately, this rationing further reduces the profitability of the pizza manufacturer, and even more go out of business.

Soon there aren't any pizza places left, but the government still insists you have a right to pizza. Where do you go to get that right?

And what, besides government fiat, gave you the right to the fruit of another man's labor in the first place? What gave you the right to demand that I give you something I've produced at great cost for a price you set? What gave you the right to decide that I can't sell my product to some people, but I have to sell it to others? What gave you the right to decide how much of my product anyone can buy at a time? What gave you the right to take money out of your neighbor's pocket to pay for your pizza?

When we talk about health care many people get emotional because we're all afraid to die. When we talk about pizza, the argument seems silly.

Because it is.


-Rob

 

[elder999]

As far as I know (and I am more than willing to be shown wrong as I'm not on a polemic here) the proto-American's never won a single major engagement where they were not heavily supported by line troops of the French. Skirmish tactics do not win battles on their own and altho' they were very good at it, that was the mainstay of the rebels.
.

Off the top of my head, because it's one of those things that's stuck in it, the Battle of Charleston, which occurred 184 years before my birthday to the day (hence, the "stuck in my head" part :lol: ) was won by the Americans before the French really joined the war, on June 28, 1776, and it kept the British out of the south for nearly two years.

And George Washington won the Battle of Trenton over German Hessians commanded by the British, the day after Christmas of that same year, and won the battle of Princeton over British troops commanded by Cornwallis a week later

And, of course, while the rebels had seen many military disasters in the course of the war, it was the Battle of Saratoga, in October of 1777, that convinced the French to join with them. There, in Saratoga, New York, Daniel Morgan and Horatio Gates defeated the British general, Burgoyne........

Sorry, Mark-this stuff just got drilled into me from an early age, having grown up near all those areas,and having ancestors that fought in that war. No one knows better than I that, while as President Bush once said, America has no stronger friend than Britain, America has no older friend than France.

But they wouldn't have joined up with us if we hadn't kicked some British *** first.:lfao:

 

[Archangel M]

And it was the South's hope to reverse the process during the Civil War..thinking that if they could kick enough Union *** that the British would step in and help them. History has a way of repeating themes....

 

[Thesemindz]

Hmmm i can see were you are coming from. Although after looking at the censorship page I see no error in the logic of "Most" of the decisions. but I can't argue with the fact that our goverments have made errors in the past, (big ones and i think you missed our treatment of the aborignals) and will probably make them in the future. But I can't help but think that your looking at things a bit on the extreme side.

I wanted to address one other issue here seperately. Yes, I am looking at this argument as one of extremes. Either we are extemely free, or we are extremely oppressed. A person may argue that in some countries they behead thousands in the public square, but in America we only rarely allow our government to torture and kill innocent people.

To me, that is like saying it's ok to rape one women, but not ok to rape a thousand. Or it's ok to beat your wife a little, but beating your wife a lot is wrong, and beating her none at all equally so.

Often when I say that the government is doing something at the point of a gun, people respond by saying I'm being extreme. Next time your government tells you to do something, just say no. Don't do it. No matter how strenuously they demand it, object that much more vociferously. The right to protest means nothing without the right to act on your protestations. So refuse. Don't get a business license, or drive without tags, or fail to pay your taxes. Just don't. And no matter what they say or do, keep refusing to do so.

Wait and see how long it takes the guys with the guns to show up and enforce corporate policy.


-Rob

 

[Sukerkin]

Ah yes, the loss by Cornwallis is rather famous. Not what I would deem a major engagement tho':

Casualties were not heavy. The British lost only 40 dead, 58 wounded and 187 missing. The Americans lost a number of able officers: General Mercer, Colonel Haslet and several others. They also lost 40 soldiers killed and wounded.

As to the Battle of Charleston, I admit I don't know that one. The Siege of Charleston was a British victory - that can't be the one you're thinking of surely?

The Battle of Trenton did not see any British troops enagaged as far as I know as the only unit present was a single troop of 16th Light Dragoons who left before the fight started. Again, not what I'd term a major engagement:

The Americans suffered 4 wounded casualties (rumoured that two American soldiers froze to death in the bad weather). The Hessians suffered 20 killed and around 100 wounded.

I'll grant you Saratoga tho'; should have remembered that one.


Anyhow, I reckon we should take this 'outside', so to speak. I only raised it to illustrate that tho' an attrractive idea, the concept that an armed populous can resist a determined government is a fallacy. The War of Independance was won with the assistance of another, powerful and foreign, government; not by dint of the armed 'common man' of the colony.

 

[elder999]

Anyhow, I reckon we should take this 'outside', so to speak. I only raised it to illustrate that tho' an attrractive idea, the concept that an armed populous can resist a determined government is a fallacy. The War of Independance was won with the assistance of another, powerful and foreign, government; not by dint of the armed 'common man' of the colony.

No need to take it outside-maybe some other time, when we've got more. As for the concept being a fallacy, you should tell that to the Russians and the Afghan mujahadeen. While they did need U.S. (or someone's, anyway) assistance against the Soviet Mi-24 HIND helicopter, the entire reason for that particular piece of equipment being brought in was their rather successful armed resistance, at times with 19th century armaments.

 

[MBuzzy]

No need to take it outside-maybe some other time, when we've got more. As for the concept being a fallacy, you should tell that to the Russians and the Afghan mujahadeen. While they did need U.S. (or someone's, anyway) assistance against the Soviet Mi-24 HIND helicopter, the entire reason for that particular piece of equipment being brought in was their rather successful armed resistance, at times with 19th century armaments.

While this is a very interesting discussion, I believe Sukerkin was referring to taking the discussion outside the thread. It is interesting, but has very little to do with the OP. I do see the connection, but we seem to be talking more about the specifics of revolution than the philosophical idea of "believing in guns."

 

[elder999]

While this is a very interesting discussion, I believe Sukerkin was referring to taking the discussion outside the thread. It is interesting, but has very little to do with the OP. I do see the connection, but we seem to be talking more about the specifics of revolution than the philosophical idea of "believing in guns."

I meant the discussion around the specifics of the Revolutionary War, as I'm sure he did, and I meant that there was no need to continue that particular discussion, here or elsewhere. On the other hand:

Someone in another thread recently posted that he didn't "believe in guns."

So I have a question for those of you who don't "believe in guns."
Do you believe in self defense? Do you believe that people have any inherent right, seperate from the privileges granted them by their local authorities, to defend their lives against unwelcome aggression? Does anyone have the right to use violence to defend themselves under any circumstances at all? Is there any situation that you can think of where an innocent person has the right to defend themselves

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

This right was secured, based upon the writings of the time, as one of the distinguishing marks of a truly free society, on the premise that one where some had this right and others did not, was not a free society at all.

It is the very basis for so many, many, many Americans believing in guns, and is itself based, in part, on the notion of "popular revolution" against the government.

 

[Cryozombie]

While I understand the greater point you are making, I have to disagree with your choice of words.

I don't plan on subjugating anyone. I don't practice or approve of oppression of free people in any form.


If a person chooses to beat their sword into a plowshare, that's fine, just don't come for my swords. I say, plowshares for plowing, swords for swording.


-Rob

Yeah, but I don't want my swordless neighbors beating on my door to hide behine me when their enemies come beating on theirs either. I have no problem standing side by side with them against their enemies, but I don't particularly want to fight for them. Well, Without pay anyhow.

 

[Thesemindz]

Yeah, but I don't want my swordless neighbors beating on my door to hide behine me when their enemies come beating on theirs either. I have no problem standing side by side with them against their enemies, but I don't particularly want to fight for them. Well, Without pay anyhow.

This I agree with completely. Unfortunately, those without swords are often the quickest to call for someone with a sword to come to their aid. Think about the number of anti-gun celebrities with armed bodyguards, or the number of people who want cops to come to your house with guns to take your guns away.

I've said it before. Hiring someone with a gun to threaten me is no different than threatening me yourself. It doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility, or give you the moral high ground. If you aren't willing to use violence to defend youself, it is hypocritical to ask someone else to do so on your behalf.


-Rob

 

[searcher]

It helped a bit in the 1700's...

As to the "everybody in America is walking around with guns" statement upthread...have you ever visited the US? Doesnt sound like any place Ive ever been.

For all the "violent America" hype...the VAST majority of US citizens have never been the victim of a violent crime or shot anybody.

True and true and true.

The times when I was getting shot at was on foreign soil, by some of those, "My people cannot own guns" types.

 

[mozzandherb]

I think you and your wife have every right to decide what is and is not a part of your life and your home. If you choose not to keep and use firearms in your defense, then that should be respected.

However, it would seem from your post that you believe people have the right to use violence to defend themselves, but only within a certain range and only up to a certain level of force.

I mean this as a serious question. Could a person use a bow and arrow to defend themselves? If so, then range is not your issue, it is degree of force.

So why do you feel it is ok to use violence to defend yourself, but only up to a certain degree, regardless of the violence brought against you?


-Rob

It's a good point you bring up, but there are some mitigating factors that would decide the level of violence I would use. If my life or my families life was in immediate danger I would use whatever force necessary to stop them. That means that if there was some crazy scenario and I was in a life and death situation and there happened to be a gun next to me I would use it.

 

[Thesemindz]

It's a good point you bring up, but there are some mitigating factors that would decide the level of violence I would use. If my life or my families life was in immediate danger I would use whatever force necessary to stop them. That means that if there was some crazy scenario and I was in a life and death situation and there happened to be a gun next to me I would use it.

Ok, how do you square this with your earlier comments?

Guns are bad, so are bullets.

I don't believe in the use of guns for killing people...
I believe people have the right to use violence to defend themselves, but does this have to include guns? For me it does not need to...
I will defend myself and my family in other ways if need be...

So at first you seem to be saying that you don't accept the practice of using firearms in self defense, and yet now you are contradicting that statement. What is your justification for that?

Either you accept that firearms have their place in self defense or you don't. You can't say that it's ok for you to use them, but not ok for others to do so. You can't say that there are some situations that are severe enough to warrant their use, but that they should not be used to kill people. Not and be logically consistent.

As a tool, their purpose in self defense is killing people. Not hurting them. Yes, you can shoot to maim or injure, but the reason they work as a deterrent to crime is specifically because of their lethal nature. If a situation warrants using potentially lethal force, than you accept that a person may end up dead. It is directly contradictory to say that you are willing to use a gun in self defense, but not to kill a person with a gun.

Of course there are mitigating circumstances in any violent encounter which determine the appropriate use of force. If a 13 year old is trespassing on your property he is violating your rights. The appropriate response is probably not to pull out a pistol and blow his head off. At the same time, if you and your wife are out for a walk one night and are confronted with a trio of knife wielding assailants, shooting to kill might save both you and your wife from more than simple assault. Most legitimate cases of self defense probably can be resolved with little more than brandishing a firearm and demonstrating the will to use it.

The fact that you feel the need to make statements about mitigating use of force and crazy life and death circumstances would seem to imply that you don't think others have considered the same. As though the rest of us who promote defensive firearms practice think they are the hammer for every nail. They clearly are not. They are a specialized tool with a specific purpose. When you need a firearm, nothing else will do, but that doesn't mean you always need a firearm.

If your aims are humanitarian, I would argue that the defensive use of firearms falls well within that category. If I'm attacked by a drunk, stepping into a fighting stance might encourage violence, drawing a firearm will probably deter it. If I'm attacked by a psychopathic monster, fighting with my hands might allow him to live to prey on others, shooting him will end the threat he poses to a civil society.

You seem to be conflicted on your position on self defense. I've always felt that an important part of defending one's self and the things one holds dear is preparing one's self ahead of time by deciding what you believe and what you are willing to do in the name of those beliefs.


-Rob

 

[Tez3]

It helped a bit in the 1700's...

As to the "everybody in America is walking around with guns" statement upthread...have you ever visited the US? Doesnt sound like any place Ive ever been.

For all the "violent America" hype...the VAST majority of US citizens have never been the victim of a violent crime or shot anybody.

No I haven't been to the States but then I never said everyone walks around with guns either.

I was merely meaning in my post that it sounded as if it should be another thread ( which it has been made into since I posted)
I think Sukerkin has answered very well questions on the American Independance thing which I always find amusing that some Americans are still touchy about.it was a bigger thing in american history than it was ours, at that particular time we had plenty of other colonies who in time were all given independance anyway.

 

[thetruth]

Maybe I expressed myself poorly and it was assuming I was saying you could go to the local 7-eleven and pick up a gun. It is however a hell of a lot easier to get a gun in the states. If I am not a member of a gun club and I don't sport shoot then only under very very extraordinary circumstances would I be able to own one. If I am a member then more than likely the gun would be required to be kept at the gun club. I could get a .22 or a shotgun and they would have to be kept in a gun safe at home with the ammo in another safe. No semi automatic weapons are allowed. Also the statistic of 70 something percent of all gun crimes being with weapons bought on the street etc etc really says nothing as I am sure at one point most of those guns were bought and paid for at a gun shop in the states.


Lastly as far as not wanting to have to defend ones neighbors if they choose not to own guns. Well I find that kind of strange. If your neighbors were being beaten up by someone in the street would you say well I don't want to defend them because they chose not to do martial arts and I did????????

Just because it is a constitutional right to own a gun it isn't a requirement to do so.


Cheers
Sam:asian:

 

[thetruth]

If I am not a member of a gun club and I don't sport shoot then only under very very extraordinary circumstances would I be able to own one. If I am a member then more than likely the gun would be required to be kept at the gun club.

I am referring to a pistol in this part and clearly a rifle and shotgun later.

Just to clarify

Cheers
Sam:asian:

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Ok, how do you square this with your earlier comments?





So at first you seem to be saying that you don't accept the practice of using firearms in self defense, and yet now you are contradicting that statement. What is your justification for that?

Either you accept that firearms have their place in self defense or you don't. You can't say that it's ok for you to use them, but not ok for others to do so. You can't say that there are some situations that are severe enough to warrant their use, but that they should not be used to kill people. Not and be logically consistent.

As a tool, their purpose in self defense is killing people. Not hurting them. Yes, you can shoot to maim or injure, but the reason they work as a deterrent to crime is specifically because of their lethal nature. If a situation warrants using potentially lethal force, than you accept that a person may end up dead. It is directly contradictory to say that you are willing to use a gun in self defense, but not to kill a person with a gun.

Of course there are mitigating circumstances in any violent encounter which determine the appropriate use of force. If a 13 year old is trespassing on your property he is violating your rights. The appropriate response is probably not to pull out a pistol and blow his head off. At the same time, if you and your wife are out for a walk one night and are confronted with a trio of knife wielding assailants, shooting to kill might save both you and your wife from more than simple assault. Most legitimate cases of self defense probably can be resolved with little more than brandishing a firearm and demonstrating the will to use it.

The fact that you feel the need to make statements about mitigating use of force and crazy life and death circumstances would seem to imply that you don't think others have considered the same. As though the rest of us who promote defensive firearms practice think they are the hammer for every nail. They clearly are not. They are a specialized tool with a specific purpose. When you need a firearm, nothing else will do, but that doesn't mean you always need a firearm.

If your aims are humanitarian, I would argue that the defensive use of firearms falls well within that category. If I'm attacked by a drunk, stepping into a fighting stance might encourage violence, drawing a firearm will probably deter it. If I'm attacked by a psychopathic monster, fighting with my hands might allow him to live to prey on others, shooting him will end the threat he poses to a civil society.

You seem to be conflicted on your position on self defense. I've always felt that an important part of defending one's self and the things one holds dear is preparing one's self ahead of time by deciding what you believe and what you are willing to do in the name of those beliefs.


-Rob

Just an aside to correct some terminology:

As far as self defense is concerned, there IS no "shooting to kill" and there IS no "Shooting to wound" there is ONLY shooting to stop the threat and gods help you if you ever state otherwise to the cops/jury.

 

[Hagakure]

As to your second question, yes, our government allows the states to pass oppressive legislation all the time. In some states, consenting adults can be prosecuted for private acts of intimacy because of their gender. In other states, individuals can be imprisoned for imbibing purely recreational substances purchased in a mutually beneficial manner without fraud and used in the privacy of their homes. In others, a woman can have sex with as many men as she wants in return for a twenty dollar dinner and a ten dollar movie, but if they decide to cut out the middle man and trade sex for thirty dollars, they're both guilty of a crime.

State oppression takes many forms. How much of the fruits of your labor are being confiscated by your government every day to pay for programs you didn't vote for, don't want, and can't participate in?

You argue that your country is free from oppression, I would argue that no man who pays tribute to another man at the point of a gun is free from oppression.


-Rob
__________________

Hmmmm, and yet, your ownership of guns doesn't seem to be preventing the govt from passing oppressive laws/edicts. Does it? By your logic, because of all the gun ownership in the States, the rate of oppressive law passing wouldn't exist, or exist at a much lower rate - comparable to what, I don't know. Yet, the last 8 years in particular have been quite a ride in that sense... I'm not sure I agree with your argument here. But that's fine.

However, a gun is a great leveller in my view. That said, I don't own one, or feel the need to own one. I don't believe my owning one, or everyone in my road owning one would make the govt a more or less tyrannic lot. There is quite a lot of gun ownership in the UK, not always legal, but it's there, and yet, we also have a govt that couldn't tie it's own shoelaces. For crying out loud, at the recent visit of the Chinese premiere they even hung the Union Flag upside down, fools.

I always feel, and this is by no means a pop at the Americans on here, that gun ownership, and the discussion of it, always gets pretty emotive. I think that from a Brits perspective, I simply do not understand the fondness for the humble gun that many (notice the word "many", and not "all") Americans seem to have. Does that mean that because I'm not interested in owning a gun I am suddenly a pacifist, and would idly stand by while I or my family were in danger? Of course not. Nor does it mean that I feel the need to arm myself to the teeth, my home contains enough nasty things as it is, katana (fully tempered - battle ready so to speak), a roman gladius (an amazing stabbing weapon) and a pair of tempered, hardened butterfly knives. So I certainly don't feel undefended.

Defend yourself from tyranny by all means, it's merely that there are a multitude of ways of doing it, in which owning a gun is just one, and, in my view, by no means the most pragmatic/practical/superior.